Questions and Answers Related to the Preproposal Conference Held Thursday, May 31, 2007 for the Request for Proposals to Conduct a Management and Operations Audit of
Philadelphia Gas Works
Q1: In reference to page 5, Section I-12 of the RFP – in addition to the paper copies of the technical proposal, offerors shall submit one complete and exact copy of the technical proposal on CD-ROM in Microsoft Office format. Is it permissible to submit the electronic copy of the technical proposal using adobe pdf file format?
Answer: Yes.
Q2: In reference to Section I-19 of the RFP on page 7, how many copies of prior work must be submitted and could it be submitted as an electronic file?
Answer: A single copy of prior work is sufficient; however, it cannot be submitted electronically.
Q3: In reference to page 10, Section I-26, paragraphs j & k of the RFP, provide clarification on what type of information is authorized for release to the Commission and PGW?
Answer: The intent of the language in paragraph “j” is to enable identification of liabilities between the offeror and the Commonwealth, because the PUC cannot contract with a vendor with any liabilities to the Commonwealth. Similarly, in paragraph “k”, PGW cannot contract with a vendor with any liabilities between the vendor and itself, or the City of Philadelphia, therefore the clause authorizes identification of the contractor’s liabilities to the City.
Q4: On page 12, of the RFP at Section II-6, Statement of Potential Conflicts of Interest, and page 23, Section III-5 of the RFP, Potential Conflicts of Interest, do not appear to be consistent. Section III-5 asks for disclosure with respect to any Commission work while Section II-6 does not ? Please clarify ? Also, does the context to a role in an adversarial proceeding refer the role as a respondent in such a proceeding?
Answer. We will provide a clarification on the website. Clarification: As identified in Section II-6, a Statement of Potential Conflicts of Interest, disclosure needs to only be made with respect to work done for or in an adversarial proceeding against either the City of Philadelphia or PGW. Disclosure of work performed for the Commission as outlined in Section III-5 need not be provided. Also, language referring to disclosure of the offeror’s role in an adversarial proceeding could include a respondent’s role, however, disclosure should not be limited to such a role.
Q5: Was it an oversight in not weighting the socially disadvantaged businesses in sections I-13, I-14, II-7, II-8, and IV-7 of the RFP higher in the criteria for selection in Section III-4, E and F?
Answer: All questions with respect to the Disadvantaged Business and Enterprise Zone Small Business sections should be directed to the contact information provided in sections I-13 and I-14 of the RFP. These offices provide the scoring for the Disadvantaged Business and Enterprise Zone Small Business Participation and we just add their scores into the overall scoring.
Q6: At page 25, Section IV-2 of the RFP (Audit Phases), do references to the utility, PGW, also refer to Philadelphia Facilities Management Corporation (PFMC) as well as the Gas Commission as part of the scope of review ?
Answer. Legally, PGW is a collection of city assets. PFMC is the legal entity that manages these assets for PGW. The scope of the audit will include PGW as well as any entities (i.e., the Philadelphia Gas Commission (PGC), PFMC, City Council, Mayor’s Office, etc.) that have oversight or influence on PGW’s operations. These entities will be reviewed to the extent of their influence regarding PGW’s operations, corporate governance, financial management, etc.
Q7: In reference to page 33, Section IV-4 of the RFP – Development of Final Report, what controls are in place to ensure that PGW will provide timely comments to the consolidated final draft report in order to facilitate completion of the project and the associated contract holdback monies due to the consultant ?
Answer: Individual consultant task reports (which are submitted on a staggered basis) are first reviewed by Audit Staff prior to submitting to PGW for comment. A consolidated final draft report is compiled after all the comments for each of the individual task reports have been received from PGW. Upon issuance of the consolidated draft report to PGW (after project officer review and approval), a portion of the holdback dollars will be released to the consultant. PGW, as per the contract terms, has ten days to comment on the final consolidated draft. Part of the Audit Staff’s role in the project is to actively participate in the audit in order to mitigate unusual or unnecessary delays.
Q8: What is the expected start date for the audit, as the Commission has previously issued a notice identifying October 2007 as the desired date to start work? Was the intent to start after the PGW rate case was filed?
Answer: The approximate dates provided in the aforementioned notice were only a projected date to commence the field work and complete the project. The actual start date will be somewhat dictated by the consultants’ proposals. However, the audit must be completed by April 2009 per our legislative mandate. PGW’s rate case does not drive the timing of the audit rather the legislative 5‑8 year mandate is the main factor.
Q9: Regarding the preproposal meeting, were any questions submitted prior to the meeting held today?
Answer: No questions were submitted previous to the meeting today.
Q10: Was it mandatory to attend the meeting today in order to submit a proposal?
Answer: No, attendance at the preproposal meeting is not mandatory for submitting proposals.
Q11: Who is the project officer and does he come from the audit division? Will Commission personnel with a general knowledge in gas operations be involved in the audit?
Answer: Mike Palewicz of the PUC Bureau of Audits’ Management Audit Division is the designated project officer assigned to handle day to day activities. Additionally, Commission personnel within and outside the Bureau of Audits knowledgeable about gas operations will be utilized as appropriate throughout the audit. For instance, the gas safety supervisor in the Commission’s Bureau of Transportation and Safety would certainly need to be interviewed.
Q12: Could reference be provided to the statutory requirements cited in the previous answer regarding the legislative 5-8 year mandate?
Answer: Title 66, Section 516(a).
Q13: Is the Tioga Marine Pier shown on the slide in the presentation owned by PGW?
Answer: The Tioga Marine Pier is not a PGW asset; it is owned by the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority. The Pier is adjacent to PGW’s Richmond Plant.
Q14: Can you tell us if PFMC is incorporated in PA?
Answer: PFMC is incorporated in Pennsylvania.
Q15: Were the organization changes that occurred at PGW between 2003 and 2007 mandated by any outside agency or entity?
Answer: Due its fiscal challenges, PGW enacted several organizational changes as a result of a number of factors including but not limited to the previous PUC Management Audit, self-directed efficiency improvements, governance directives, and lastly to ensure its fiscal viability.
Q16: Who is PGW’s outside auditor?
Answer: KPMG has prepared the financial statements the last four years while PriceWaterhouseCoopers has performed internal auditing work.
Q17: Did PGW recently issue an RFP for a consultant to serve its pre-audit needs and serve as a coach to this audit?
Answer: Yes, PGW recently issued an RFP to acquire the services of a consultant to support PGW through the upcoming management audit process.
Q18: Is all the land at the Passyunk and Richmond facilities on PGW’s books?
Answer: Yes.
Q19: What will remain at the Passyunk facilities after the current project to remove aging infrastructure is completed?
Answer: PGW’s LNG and natural gas infrastructure, administrative and training facilities.